El jurista Sanchez: Ratzinger es el Papa, los sucesores de Bergoglioserán todos antipapas

de Andrea Cionci

Authorized English translation can be found here. To reach the Original in italian, click the image above.

Hace unos días publicamos una entrevista con el profesor Antonio Sánchez Sáez, catedrático de Derecho de la Universidad de Sevilla (fundada en 1505) que explicaba junto a la abogada Estefanía Acosta cómo y por qué la renuncia de Benedicto XVI es inválida. Esto ha sido posible gracias alas afirmaciones cruzadas de dos canonistas pro-Bergoglio, Mons. Sciacca (Secretario de la Signatura Apostólica) y la profesora Geraldina Boni de la Universidad de Bolonia. No sólo no ha habido desmentidos, sino que ayer saltó la noticia de que el Vaticano ha metido mano al inexistente instituto del papa emérito AQUÍ

Esto parece justamente confirmar lo que el profesor Sánchez afirmaba hace unos días: el papado emérito ha sido una pantalla tras la cual Benedicto XVI continuó siendo el papa reinante y ejerciendo las funciones de “Katejon” AQUÍ

Ahora le preguntamos al profesor qué escenarios se vislumbran para el periodo post-Ratzinger y/o post-Bergoglio. Y el escenario es dramático. Si quiere leer un resumen, puede ir directamente a las conclusiones al final del artículo.

Profesor Sánchez, de Monseñor Sciacca y la profesora Boni no hasurgido respuesta alguna: ¿es esto normal en los círculos académicos? 

R. “En el ámbito académico, suele haber un tiempo razonable para que la otra parte responda, dado que las revistas jurídicas tienen plazos bastante largos para la admisión de los originales. Pero en el caso de los medios no académicos (como en este caso) normalmente ya habría llegado una respuesta. Lo que está comúnmente establecido entre nosotros, los académicos, es que ‘el que calla, otorga'”.

Pero vayamos directamente al grano: ¿qué pasaría si Francisco nos dejara o renunciara antes de la salida de Benedicto XVI? 

R. “Como hemos ilustrado AQUÍ, sin ser desmentidos, la renuncia de Benedicto XVI es nula y sigue siendo el único Papa reinante. Actualmente existe la situación de la “SEDE IMPEDIDA”, prevista por el Código de Derecho Canónico (art. 412 y siguientes), que se refiere a los casos en los que, “por cautiverio, relegación, destierro o incapacidad”, el Papa está totalmente incapacitado para ejercer sus funciones, como lo está hoy Benedicto XVI. Según el Código, deben observarse las prescripciones de las “leyes especiales dadas para estos casos”.  En cualquier caso, la salida de Bergoglio no daría lugar a la sede vacante ni a la convocatoria del cónclave, porque el papa (Benedicto XVI) sigue vivo y nunca ha abdicado (can. 153). No creo que Bergoglio dimita, pero incluso su dimisión no cambiaría su condición de antipapa y usurpador, ni la de Benedicto, el papa reinante”.

¿Y si Benedicto dejara este mundo antes que Francisco?

R. “En este caso la sede quedaría vacante (can. 335) y un “pequeño resto fiel” tendría que elegir un nuevo papa, en el exilio, quizás ya en ese momento muy perseguido por la falsa Iglesia oficial, caída en la apostasía.

El sucesor de Benedicto XVI sería contemporáneo del antipapa Bergoglio, que dirigirá la falsa iglesia ecuménicamundial, una iglesia sin transubstanciación, en la que se habrá abolido el sacrificio perpetuo (la Misa en latín ya ha sido abolida, n.d.r.), sin dogmas, unida al mundo y al resto de confesiones religiosas. Por otro lado, el pequeño remanente fiel que seguirá al nuevo Papa verdadero será la auténtica Iglesia católica”.

Muchos piensan que sólo es cuestión de esperar a que Francisco salga de escena para poder ordenar las cosas y elegir un papa que ponga las cosas en su sitio. ¿Es realmente así?

R: “Un enorme error, de importancia histórica, que continuará la línea de sucesión antipapal de Bergoglio. De hecho, si se va a un cónclave nulo (ya que por el canon 126 hubo un error sustancial en la renuncia de 2013 y en la posterior sede vacante) con unos 80 cardenales inválidos nombrados por el antipapa, sólo se elegirá otro antipapa, y luego otra vez, y otra vez. (Canon 174 § 2: si los cardenales presentes no son válidamente elegidos, la votación (Cónclave) es nula).

Todo el proceso de elección papal está regulado en la Constitución UniversiDominiciGregis, aprobada por Juan Pablo II. Vuelve a leerlo y lo verás”.

Pero, entonces, ¿por qué una gran parte del mundo tradicionalista critica ferozmente a Bergoglio mientras sigue reconociéndolo como Papa legítimo? 

R. “EL MEJOR FAVOR QUE PUEDEN HACERLE: demuestran al mundo que hasta los más acérrimos opositores de Bergoglio lo reconocen como Papa y que, por tanto, su legitimidad no está en duda. Como prueba, Bergoglio es completamente impermeable a esos ataques, pero reacciona con furia, excomulgando sin proceso canónico sólo a los eclesiásticos que no lo reconocen como Papa, a los que ponen el dedo en la llaga: su ilegitimidad.

Quienes critican a Bergoglio, pero lo consideran Papa, no sólo provocan un escándalo (si fuera Papa, habría que obedecerlo porque estaría asistido por el Espíritu Santo incluso en sus actividades ordinarias, como dice el artículo 892 del Catecismo (AQUÍ), sino que, sobre todo, TRABAJAN INCONSCIENTEMENTE PARA GARANTIZAR SU SUCESIÓN ANTIPAPAL. Muchos de estos críticos, laicos y religiosos, de perfecta buena fe, se hacen la ilusión de que criticando tan ferozmente a Bergoglio pueden convencer al próximo cónclave (falso) de que elija a un papa de la Tradición. Esto ya es completamente improbable dada la mayoría absoluta de los cardenales de Bergoglio, pero incluso si, por pura casualidad, fuera elegido un tradicionalista (como el card. Burke o Mons. Viganò) , seguiría siendo un antipapa, elegido por un cónclave inválido y, por tanto, carente de la asistencia del Espíritu Santo: se acabó la Iglesia canónica.

¿Un poco como en 1138 cuando el antipapa Anacleto II fue sucedido por el antipapa Víctor IV después de ocho años de reinado?

R. “Ciertamente: el antipapa Anacleto II reinó como supuesto papa en el Vaticano durante varios años, hasta su muerte, con el consentimiento del pueblo romano. Tal y como ocurre ahora. Pero la decisiva actuación de San Bernardo de Claraval, que apoyó firmemente al papa legítimo, Inocencio II, y denunció la usurpación del papado por parte de Anacleto II, hizo que, tras su muerte, su sucesor, el también antipapa Víctor IV, depusiera su tiara ante Inocencio II. Este cisma duró ocho años.

Algo similar ocurrió en el siglo XIV cuando Santa Catalina de Siena apoyó a Urbano VI contra el antipapa Clemente VII, que fue elegido de forma no canónica, como lo es ahora Bergoglio. La intervención de los santos fue decisiva para aclarar quién era el verdadero papa, cuando esto era motivo de controversia. Incluso hoy tenemos sacerdotes valientes que denuncian el asunto, pero no se les escucha”.

Así que, básicamente, Benedicto ha separado las líneas de sucesión para siempre: la suya es papal y la de Bergoglio es antipapal. Ahora el Vaticano admite AQUÍ  que la institución del papa emérito no existe y está trabajando para poner las cosas en su sitio. ¿Podrían convencer a Benedicto, de 94 años, de que declare algo para sanear su renuncia inválida? 

R. “No. Dado que la renuncia de Benedicto XVI fue nula AQUÍ , su actitud actual o futura es casi irrelevante, en el sentido de que el acto de renuncia es nulo independientemente del hecho de que Benedicto reconozca o no que es el Papa reinante y no Bergoglio. Es decir, en este momento BENEDICTO XVI ES EL PAPA, QUIÉRALO O NO. Y Bergoglio es un antipapa. Punto. Esto permanecerá incluso después de la muerte de Benedicto y nada podrá cambiarlo después.

Hoy, el Papa Ratzinger podría hacer unas declaraciones diciendo que él es el Papa, aclarando que su renuncia fue nula, para que los fieles sepan la verdad que por ahora sólo conocen algunos juristas, sacerdotes y fieles. Pero también podría negarlo, diciendo que Bergoglio es el Papa. En ambos casos seguiría siendo el Papa, porque LA NULIDAD DE LA RENUNCIA ACTÚA POR SÍ MISMA, INDEPENDIENTEMENTE DE LO QUE ÉL PUEDA DECIR AHORA. La propia autoridad del Papa está sujeta al Derecho Canónico, si no lo cambia de antemano. Por supuesto, una declaración del Papa Ratzinger en una rueda de prensa pública y abierta confirmando la teoría del Plan B AQUÍ ayudaría mucho, pero no sé si finalmente lo hará. En todo caso, serían nulos casi todos los actos eclesiásticos adoptados por Bergoglio en estos 8 años, como la creación o nombramiento de cardenales, igualmente nulas serían sus Encíclicas, las modificaciones del Catecismo, las modificaciones del Magisterio, etc. Sólo serían válidos los actos de administración ordinaria, en los que “Ecclesiasupplet”. Benedicto XVI podría sanear la nulidad de algunos de los actos nulos de Bergoglio si quisiera confirmarlos, pero sólo él podría decir cuáles habría fijado también con su voluntad. Por poner un ejemplo, podía confirmar el birrete cardenalicio conferido por Bergoglio sólo a aquellos cardenales que se han mostrado fieles a él y han contribuido a denunciar al antipapa”.

Una buena estrategia de salida, a estas alturas, para Bergoglio, podría ser dimitir, para dejar caer las impugnaciones a la renuncia de Ratzinger y dejar que su línea antipapal continúe con un cónclave de 80 anticardenales propios, ¿no?

R. “Una vez acorralado, sería lo único que podría hacer para, al menos, salvar su línea de sucesión antipapal y completar su obra. Pero como dije arriba, no creo que Bergoglio renuncie, porque nunca ha renunciado a ejercer el poder. Si se lee “La Chiesa tradita” (La Iglesia traicionada) de Antonio Caponnetto o “Il vero Francisco” (El verdadero Francisco), de su amigo periodista Omar Bello (fallecido en accidente de tráfico), se comprenderá hasta qué punto esto es cierto.

Pero cada vez son más los que se dan cuenta de que Benedicto XVI ha sido objeto de un golpe de estado por parte de la masonería eclesiástica y civil y que ha ideado el plan de fingir su renuncia, haciéndola inválida y nula, para seguir siendo efectivamente Papa en la sombra. Se quedó el Katejon, dejando la sede impedida, pero ejerciendo el papado, no sólo a través de la oración y el sufrimiento, sino también bloqueando al usurpador a través de entrevistas y libros, como el que escribió recientemente con el Card. Sarah y que impidió a Bergoglio aprobar la ordenación de losviriprobati en el Sínodo de la Amazonía. En otros discursos ha defendido la presencia real y sustancial de Cristo en la Eucaristía, ha dicho que el diálogo nunca puede sustituir a la misión, ha defendido Veritatis splendor de papa Wojtyla frente a la situación moral de Amoris laetitia, o ha dicho que la crisis de los abusos sexuales a menores proviene de la apostasía de la Verdad, etc”.

Algunos eclesiásticos han entendido que la renuncia no es válida y que Benedicto sigue siendo el único Papa, pero desesperan de que se pueda hacer algo. ¿Es realmente así? 

R. “Sí. Aparte de algunos cardenales, obispos y sacerdotes que aún no lo han entendido, otros callan por respeto humano y otros por cobardía. Sin embargo, una vez que se informan y rechazan la realidad objetiva, asumen una enorme responsabilidad espiritual. Porque no hay mayor escándalo que consentir una mentira -en este caso fatal para la Iglesia canónica- ni mayor caridad que decir siempre la Verdad, (veritas summacharitasest) como siempre ha hecho la Iglesia a lo largo de su historia. Pero si los cardenales siguen callando, hablarán las piedras, es decir, los laicos que aman la Verdad por encima de todo. De hecho, el debate ya ha comenzado y no se puede ocultar más. Bergoglio lleva 8 años destruyendo la fe y la moral de la Iglesia, escandalizando a los pequeños y uniéndose al Nuevo Orden Mundial masónico y anticristiano. Esto hace que mucha gente se pregunte ahora si es el verdadero Papa o no, sobre todo cuando ven a Benedicto XVI vestido de Papa, firmando P.P., dando la bendición apostólica y corrigiendo a Bergoglio”.

¿Quién debería tomar la iniciativa, algún cardenal?

R. “Cuando un antipapa ha ocupado la sede de Pedro o el verdadero papa ha sido cuestionado, las cosas nunca han sido fáciles de resolver. La solución fue a veces armada, promovida por reyes y emperadores que apoyaban al auténtico papa. O bien, la solución llegó a través de un concilio ecuménico, como el Concilio de Constanza, que cerró el Cisma de Occidente. A veces bastaban los sínodos, como los de Reims y Piacenza, que reafirmaban al verdadero papa Inocencio II frente al antipapa Anacleto II.

Por supuesto, ahora no tenemos reyes católicos ni un emperador romano-germánico para tomar las armas. La única solución sería un Concilio Ecuménico. De lo contrario, los cardenales de hoy tendrán que aceptar, una tras otra, las etapas del proceso de desintegración y mutación del catolicismo hasta que tengan que ser cazados, so pena de dejar de ser católicos” (ver el ejemplo del “cuco” AQUÍ, n.d.r.).

Sin un sínodo, la Iglesia católica tendría que surgir de la nada, de forma catacumbal y clandestina, tal y como profetizó el Papa Ratzinger, abandonando la sede del Vaticano como la cáscara seca de una crisálida…

R. “Sí. Ese pusilusgrex (pequeño rebaño) será perseguido por el mundo y por la falsa Iglesia católica que sigue al falso papa. Lo mismo ocurrió con los cristianos en la época de Cristo y de los emperadores romanos, perseguidos por el imperio pagano y, al mismo tiempo, por los judíos, que consideraban a los cristianos como herejes. Esto volverá a ocurrir ahora, cuando los verdaderos católicos sean expulsados de las Iglesias por oponerse a la unión de la Iglesia con el mundo y el resto de las religiones. También serán perseguidos como cismáticos (por seguir a Benedicto XVI o a su sucesor) o fundamentalistas católicos”.

Así que hoy los cardenales cercanos a la tradición que no intervienen están sellando su propio destino. La obra de reforma de Bergoglio difícilmente se detendrá, ya se habla de intercomunión con los protestantes, parece que el dogma de la transubstanciación está a punto de anularse…

R. “Cierto. El 4 de agosto, Marco Tosatti informó AQUÍ sobre los rumores de que Bergoglio quiere promover la intercomunión, y que por esta razón ha dado instrucciones al nuevo Secretario del Culto Divino, el arzobispo franciscano Vittorio Francesco Viola, para que organice una comisión confidencial en septiembre, para que dentro de dos meses le informe directamente sobre los resultados delaslabores. Como se puede ver, la intención final sería crear una nueva liturgia ecuménica, en la que se acepte la doctrina protestante (para la que la Eucaristía es una mera comida o recuerdo de la Última Cena), y se cambien drásticamente las palabras de la consagración (ya se ha insertado un extraño rocío masónico en la segunda oración de consagración AQUÍ n.d.r.) PARA QUE DESAPAREZCA LA TRANSUBSTANCIACIÓN. Todo ampliamente predicho desde los tiempos del profeta Daniel: el cese delsacrificio perpetuo. Esto demuestra una vez más que estamos en tiempos escatológicos y quién es realmente Jorge Mario Bergoglio”.

CONCLUSIÓN

Ha pasado definitivamente a la historia la renuncia del Papa Ratzinger anque es al derecho canónico es inválida. Que se queira o no. Benedicto XVI sigue siendo el único Papa reinante, incluso si con “asiento impedido”. Ahora puede solo hacer dos cosas: o una renuncia válida, o abrir un nuevo cónclave legítimo con cardenales nombrados antes de 2013, o reanudar el ejercicio práctico del poder.

Bergoglio es un antipapa, (porque fue elegido por un cónclave inválido ya que la Sede no estaba vacante porque Benedicto no había abdicado) y nunca podrá hacer nada para remediar esta situación. Todos los actos importantes que ha realizado son inválidos a menos que Benedicto XVI los reconfirme, a su elección, una vez que recupere el poder efectivo.

Si se celebra un cónclave para elegir al sucesor de Bergoglio, se elegirá a otro antipapa: toda su línea de sucesión es antipapal. La Iglesia se transformará definitivamente en una nueva iglesia no católica y globalista. Muchos cardenales ligados a la tradición serán gradualmente expulsados o tendrán que dejar.
El próximo Papa real sólo será el sucesor de Benedicto XVI y podrá ser sólo elegido por un cónclave compuesto por cardenales válidos nombrados por Benedicto XVI y Juan Pablo II.
Incluido los cardenales inválidos que fueron nombrados por Bergoglio, será mejor que acepten la verdad y se pasen inmediatamente al lado de Benedicto, restaurándolo en el trono. Lo más probable es que vuelvan a ser nombrados cardenales por su lealtad al legítimo sucesor de Pedro. Y la Iglesia canónica (la que conocemos) se salvará.

De lo contrario, el próximo Papa verdadero tendrá que ser elegido, en situación de exilio, por el pequeño remanente leal al Papa Benedicto XVI y la verdadera Iglesia católica, purificada, tendrá que resurgir lentamente, como en los primeros siglos del cristianismo.

Dr. Antonio Sanchez: Ratzinger is the true Pope. After Bergoglio his successors will all be Antipopes

by Andrea Cionci

Authorized English translation
(Portuguese version here)

A few days ago, we published an interview with prof. Antonio Sànchez Sàez, Professor of Law at the University of Seville (founded in 1505) who explained, together with Attorney Estefania Acosta, how and why the Declaratio of 2013, as an act of renunciation of the papacy of Benedict XVI, is invalid . This was possible thanks to the corroborating testimonies of two pro-Bergoglio canonists, Mons. Giuseppe Sciacca (Secretary of the Apostolic Signatura) and Prof. Geraldina Boni (University of Bologna). Not only were there no denials of my report, but the news came the day before yesterday that the Vatican has has recognized that no pope emeritus can possibly exist. HERE.

This seems to confirm what was asserted a few days ago by prof. Sànchez: the alleged “papacy emeritus” was a screen behind which Benedict XVI continued, for eight years, to be the reigning pope and to play the role of “Katechon” HERE.

Now we have asked the same jurist what scenarios are emerging for the “after Ratzinger” and / or the “after Bergoglio”. The possibilities are dramatic. If you want to read a summary, you can immediately jump to the conclusions at the bottom of the article.

Q. Professor Sànchez, from Mons. Sciacca and Prof. Boni there was no answer: is this normal?

A. In the academic field, usually, a reasonable time is foreseen for the counterpart’s reply, taking into account that legal journals have rather long deadlines for the admission of the originals. But in the case of non-academic media (as in this case) normally an answer would have already arrived. What is commonly established among us university students is that «whoever is silent, concedes».

Q. But let’s go straight to the heart of the matter: What would happen if Francis left us or resigned before the departure of Benedict XVI?

A. As we have illustrated (HERE), without being denied, the resignation of Benedict XVI is void and he remains the only reigning pope. Currently there is the situation of an “IMPEDED SEE”, provided for by the Code of Canon Law (art. 412 and following), which refers to cases in which, “due to imprisonment, relegation, exile or incapacity” the pope is totally incapable of exercise his functions, like Benedict XVI today.

Q. . . .Suffice it to say that, in 2012, they fired the president of the IOR Ettore Gotti Tedeschi without Pope Ratzinger knowing. He learned this from TV, as reported by the media.

A. According to the Code, the prescriptions of the “special laws given for these cases must be observed.” In any case, Bergoglio’s departure would not give rise to a vacant see or the convocation of the conclave, because the pope (Benedict XVI) is still alive and he has never abdicated (can. 153). I do not believe that Bergoglio will resign, but if this happened he would not change his status as antipope and usurper, nor that of Benedict, the reigning pope.

Q. But what if Benedict left this world before Francis?

A. In this case, the see would remain vacant (can. 335) and a “small faithful remnant” would have to elect a new pope, in exile, perhaps already at that point much persecuted by the false official Church, which had fallen into apostasy. The successor of Benedict XVI would be a contemporary of the antipope Bergoglio, who will lead the false ecumenical world church, a church without dogma, without transubstantiation, where perpetual sacrifice will have been abolished, united with the world and the rest of religious confessions, (the mass in Latin it has already been abolished HERE ed). On the other hand, only the small faithful remnant who will follow the new true pope will be the authentic Catholic Church “.

Q. Many think that it is just a matter of waiting for Francis to leave the scene in order to “fix things” and elect a pope to put things right. It’s really like this?

A: This is A HUGE ERROR, of historical significance, which will continue Bergoglio’s anti-papal succession line. In fact, if you go to the null conclave (since for can. 126 there was a substantial error in the resignation of 2013 and in the subsequent vacant see) with about 80 invalid cardinals appointed by the antipope, only one other antipope will be elected, and then again, and another. (Canon 174 § 2: if the cardinals present were not validly elected, the vote is null). — The entire papal election process is regulated in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, approved by John Paul II. Read it.

Q. But why, then, does a large part of the traditionalist world fiercely criticize Bergoglio, continuing to recognize him as a legitimate pope?

A. IT IS THE BEST FAVOR THAT THEY CAN DO HIM: they show the world that even the most bitter opponents of Bergoglio recognize him as pope and that therefore his legitimacy is not in question. As proof, Bergoglio is completely impermeable to such attacks, but he reacts furiously, excommunicating without canonical process only the ecclesiastics who do not recognize him as pope, those who put their finger in its sore point: its illegitimacy. Those who criticize Bergoglio, but consider him pope, not only give scandal (if he were the pope one would have to obey him because he would be assisted by the Holy Spirit even in ordinary activity, as stated in art.892 of the Catechism), but above all WORK UNCONSCIOUSLY TO GUARANTEE THE ANTIPAPAL SUCCESSION. Many of these critics, secular and religious, in perfect good faith, delude themselves that by criticizing Bergoglio so ferociously they can persuade the next (false) conclave to elect a pope of Tradition. This is already completely unlikely given the absolute majority of Bergoglian cardinals, but even if, by pure chance, a traditionalist were elected (such as, for example, Card. Burke or Archbishop Viganò), he would still be a antipope, elected by an invalid conclave and therefore deprived of the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Q. A bit like in 1138 when the antipope Anacletus II was succeeded by the antipope Victor IV after eight years of reign?

A. Certainly: the antipope Anacletus II reigned as presumed pope in the Vatican for several years, until his death, with the consent of the Roman people. Just like it happens now. But the decisive action of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who firmly supported the legitimate pope, Innocent II, and denounced the usurpation of the papacy by Anacletus II, meant that, after his death, his successor, the antipope Victor IV, placed his tiara in front of Pope Innocent II. This schism lasted 8 years.

Something similar happened in the fourteenth century when Saint Catherine of Siena supported Urban VI, against the antipope Clement VII, who was elected non-canonically, as Bergoglio is now. The intervention of the saints was decisive in clarifying who the real pope was, when this was the subject of controversy. Even today we have courageous priests HERE who denounce the issue, but are not listened to.

Q. So, in practice, Benedict separated the succession lines forever: his is papal and Bergoglio’s is antipapal. Now the Vatican admits HERE that the institute of the pope emeritus does not exist and is working to fix things. Could they convince 94-year-old Benedict to declare something to heal his invalid resignation?

A. No. Since Benedict XVI’s resignation was void, his current or future attitude is almost irrelevant, in the sense that the act intended as a resignation is void regardless of whether or not Benedict recognizes that he is the reigning pope and not Bergoglio. That is to say, at this moment BENEDICT XVI IS THE POPE, WHETHER HE WANTS IT OR NOT. And Bergoglio is an antipope. Point. This will remain even after Benedict’s death and nothing can change it in retrospect.

Today, Pope Ratzinger could make some statements saying that he is the pope, or that the pope is Bergoglio. In both cases he would continue to be the pope, because THE NULLITY OF THE RENUNCIATION ACTS BY ITSELF, INDEPENDENTLY OF WHAT HE MAY SAY NOW. The same authority of the pope is subject to canon law, if he does not change it in advance. Sure, a statement by Pope Ratzinger in a public and open press conference confirming a specially invalid resignation would help a lot, but I don’t know if it will in the end. In any case, almost all the ecclesiastical acts issued by Bergoglio in these 8 years, such as the creation or appointment of cardinals, would be null, just as his encyclicals, the modifications of the Catechism, the modifications of the Magisterium, etc. would be null and void. Only acts of ordinary administration would be valid, in which “Ecclesia supplet”. Benedict XVI could heal the nullity of some null acts of Bergoglio if he wanted to confirm them, but only he could say which ones. To give an example, he could confirm the invalid cardinalate conferred by Bergoglio only to those bishops who show themselves to be faithful by helping to denounce the antipope.

Q. A good exit strategy, at this point, for Bergoglio, could be to resign, in order to bring down the disputes on Ratzinger’s resignation and to continue the anti-papal line with a conclave of 80 invalid cardinals “his own”, right?

A. Once cornered, it would be the only thing to do to at least save his anti-papal succession line and complete his work. But as I said above, I don’t think Bergoglio will step down, because he has never given up on exercising power. If you read “The Betrayed Church” by Antonio Caponnetto or “The real Francisco”, by his friend and journalist Omar Bello, you will understand to what extent this is true.

But more and more people realize that Benedict XVI suffered a coup d’etat by ecclesiastical and civil Freemasonry and that he declared an invalid and void resignation, in order to effectively remain pope. The Katechon remained, leaving the seat barren, but exercising the papacy, not only through prayer and suffering, but also by blocking the usurper through interviews and books, such as the one he recently wrote with card. Sarah and who prevented Bergoglio from approving the ordination of viri probati at the Amazon Synod. In other speeches he defended the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he said that dialogue can never replace mission, he defended Pope Wojtyla’s Veritatis splendor against the moral situation of Amoris laetitia or he affirmed that the crisis of sexual abuse of minors derives from apostasy from the Truth, etc “.

Q. Some clergymen have understood that the resignation is invalid and that Benedict remains the only pope, but they despair that something can be done. It’s really like this?

A. Apart from some cardinals, bishops and priests who have not yet understood, others are silent out of human respect and others out of cowardice. However, once they have been informed and reject objective reality, they take on enormous spiritual responsibility. In fact, there is no greater scandal than consenting to lies – in this case fatal for the canonical Church – nor greater charity than always telling the truth (veritas summa charitas est). But if the Cardinals continue to be silent, the stones will speak, that is, the laity who love the Truth above all things. Indeed, the debate has already begun and can no longer be hidden. Bergoglio spent 8 years destroying the faith and morals of the Church, scandalizing the little ones and uniting them with the Masonic and anti-Christian New World Order. This makes many now ask themselves whether he is the true pope or not, especially when they see Benedict XVI dressed as pope, sign P.P., give the apostolic blessing and, above all, correct Bergoglio.

Q. Who should take the initiative, any cardinal?

A. When an anti-pope has occupied the seat of Peter or the true pope has been questioned, things have never been easy to resolve. The solution was sometimes promoted by kings and emperors who supported, by force of arms, the authentic pope. Or, the solution came through an ecumenical council, such as that of Constance, which closed the Western schism. Sometimes synods were enough, such as those of Reims and Piacenza, which reaffirmed the true pope, Innocent II against the antipope Anacletus II.

Of course, we now have no Catholic kings or Romano-Germanic emperors to intervene in arms. The only solution would be an Ecumenical Council. Otherwise, today’s cardinals will have to accept one after another the stages of the process of disintegration and mutation of Catholicism until they have to be excommunicated, on pain of finding themselves no longer Catholics.

Q. Without a synod, the Catholic Church would have to rise from nothing, in a catacomb and clandestine way, just as Pope Ratzinger prophesied, abandoning the seat of the Vatican like the dry shell of a chrysalis …

A. Yes. That pusillus grex (little flock) will be persecuted by the world and the false Catholic Church following the false pope. The same happened with Christians in the time of Christ and the Roman emperors, persecuted by the pagan empire and, at the same time, by the Jews, who considered Christians to be heretics. This will happen again now, when true Catholics will be expelled from the churches for opposing the union of the church with the world and the rest of the religions. They will also be persecuted as schismatics (for following Benedict XVI or his successor) or Catholic fundamentalists.

Q. So, today the cardinals close to the tradition who do not intervene are marking their own destiny: Bergoglio’s reforming work will hardly stop, there is already talk of intercommunion with Protestants, it seems the dogma of transubstantiation is about to jump …

A. True. On August 4, the Vaticanist Marco Tosatti reported HERE rumors about the fact that Bergoglio wants to promote intercommunion, and that for this reason he has instructed the new Secretary of Divine Worship, the Franciscan Archbishop Vittorio Francesco Viola to organize a confidential commission in the September, so that, within two months, it informs him directly about the results of the work. As we can see, the final intention would be to create a new ecumenical liturgy, where the Protestant doctrine (for which the Eucharist is a mere meal or remembrance of the Last Supper) is welcomed, and the words of the consecration will be dramatically changed. SO THAT THE TRANSUBSTANTIATION DISAPPEARS, (a strange Masonic dew has already been inserted in the 2nd prayer of consecration HERE ed). All widely foretold since the time of the prophet Daniel: the cessation of perpetual sacrifice. This shows once again that we are in eschatological times and who Jorge Mario Bergoglio really is.

CONCLUSIONS:

By now Pope Ratzinger’s Declaratio has been definitively consigned to history and canon law and as a renunciation of the papacy it is invalid. Like it or not, Benedict XVI remains the only reigning pope, albeit with “an impeded seat”. Today he can do only two things: either a valid renunciation, opening a new legitimate conclave with pre-2013 appointed cardinals, or resume the practical exercise of power.

Bergoglio is an anti-pope (because he was elected by an invalid conclave as the seat was not vacant because Benedict had not abdicated) and he will never be able to do anything to heal this situation. All the important acts made by him are not valid, unless Benedict XVI reconfirms them, at his choice, once he has regained effective power.

If the Cardinals enter into a new conclave to elect a successor of Bergoglio, another antipope will be elected: his entire line of succession is anti-papal. The Church will definitively transform itself into a new non-Catholic and globalist church. Many cardinals linked to tradition will be gradually ousted or will have to leave it.

The next true pope will only be the successor of Benedict XVI and can be elected by a conclave composed only of valid cardinals appointed by Benedict XVI or John Paul II.

Even the invalid cardinals appointed by Bergoglio should accept the truth and immediately pass over to Benedict’s side, restoring him to the throne. These will most likely be reconfirmed cardinals for their fidelity to the legitimate successor of Peter. And the canonical Church (the one we know) will be saved.

Otherwise, the next true pope will have to be elected, in a situation of exile, by the small remnant faithful to Pope Benedict XVI and the true Catholic Church, purified, will have to slowly resurrect, as in the first centuries of Christianity.

“Ratzinger is the True Pope” – The jurists Sanchez and Acosta dismantle the Bergoglian Narrative

A concise and simple summary so anyone can understand the case

by Andrea Cionci

2 August 2021

Authorized English Translation

Canon law frightens everyone, but stay calm: apart from a few passages that are a little more “technical,” we have organized some very simple summaries and syntheses that can be easily understood by anyone.

It is worth reading carefully: the question concerns over 1.2 billion Catholics and is of immeasurable gravity, because if Pope Benedict did not validly abdicate, Francis is an anti-pope: if the Magna Quaestio of the resignation is not resolved, then those who succeed Francis will all be anti-popes and the Catholic Church will no longer be the visible canonical Church that we know. After investigating the various aspects of the affair, we were constrained by logic, by way of excluding what was impossible, to arrive at the thesis of the so-called “Plan B” – which says that Pope Benedict never abdicated, having organized an intentionally invalid resignation in order to be able to annul a “false church” of Modernism, giving it a way to reveal itself over the course of time.  You will find everything here,  here, and here. Since the hypothesis is extremely plausible at a circumstantial level, it appears that the ultimate confrontation, the “final battle,” is taking place over canon law.

In this article, Professor Antonio Sànchez Sàez, ordinary professor of Law at the University of Seville here and the Colombian lawyer Estefania Acosta, the author of the book “Benedict XVI: Pope emeritus?,” convincingly take down the last defenses of two famous canonists who argue in favor of Bergoglio’s legitimacy. We are speaking of Msgr. Giuseppe Sciacca (Secretary of the Apostolic Signatura and the Revisor General of the Apostolic Camera) and Prof. Geraldina Boni of the University of Bologna, two “big names” who are invoked by everyone who supports the legitimacy of Francis as the Pontiff.

As you all know well, the crux of the dispute derives from the fact that in 1983, under Papa Wojtyla (with Card. Ratzinger already working as his “right hand man”), the papal office was divided into two entities: the munus, the divine title of pope, and the ministerium, the practical exercise of power. We have already made a hypothesis about this provision: a “false target” prepared well in advance against a foreseeable internal attack on the papacy here. In fact, according to canon law (Can. 332 § 2) the pope must renounce the munus in order for his abdication to be valid, but instead Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium here. But let’s proceed in order.

1) THE “POPE EMERITUS” DOES NOT EXIST

“I have read,” Professor Sànchez explains, “an interview given to Andrea Tornielli by Msgr. Giuseppe Sciacca HERE . Above all, Monsignor Sciacca himself admits that the institute of “Pope Emeritus” does not exist: “It is an exercise that has never been identified or defined in any doctrinal document,” and again: “[The title of emeritus] cannot be applied to the office of the Pontiff.” On this point everyone is in agreement, even the canonists Boni, Fantappié, Margiotta-Broglio, the historian [Roberto] de Mattei and others.”

2) THE “ENLARGED PAPACY” DOES NOT EXIST AND THE POPE CAN BE ONLY ONE

“Msgr. Sciacca then admits,” Sànchez continues, “that there is also not an ‘enlarged papacy’ where Benedict XVI could maintain the munus while Francis possesses the ministerium. Only ONE person can be Pope, never two at the same time: this is true and is in conformity with canon law and tradition. There are not, therefore, two popes – one active and the other passive – there is not an ‘enlarged papacy’ with two heads.” We also add that Pope Benedict XVI has also actually repeated for eight years that THERE IS ONLY ONE POPE (without however explaining which one of the two it is), as his secretary Msgr. Ganswein admits HERE .

3) THE POPE CANNOT SEPARATE MUNUS AND MINISTERIUM

“And yet,” Sànchez comments, “the conclusion drawn by Bishop Sciacca is that the pope is therefore only Jorge Mario Bergoglio, elected pope in the conclave of 13 March 2013. This is a dramatic error: for a pontiff to be validly elected, the preceding pope must be dead or have validly abdicated. And Benedict did not abdicate, exactly as declared by Msgr. Sciacca to Tornielli, since (for the Pope) the munus and ministerium are inseparable: “The fact that the Code of Canon Law in canon 332 speaks of the munus petrinum,” Msgr. Sciacca writes, “cannot in any way be interpreted as an intention of the legislator to introduce, in a matter of divine law, a distinction between the Petrine munus and ministerium. A distinction which, moreover, is impossible.”

4) BENEDICT HAS INSTEAD SEPARATED AND DISTINGUISHED MUNUS AND MINISTERIUM

“Monsignor Sciacca is right,” Sànchez continues, “when he says that the papacy cannot be divided into munus and ministerium. One person alone can hold both at the same time: the pope.” And so how is it possible that Ratzinger has distinguished and separated them, renouncing the ministerium and not the munus?  Therefore, the resignation of Benedict XVI of an alleged part of the papacy (the ministerium) and not of the entire papal office (the munus) is not valid because the “Declaratio” of the resignation commits a substantial error, as regards the condition “sine qua non” prior to a papal election: the establishment of a vacant see. So says canon 126: “An act placed out of ignorance or out of error concerning something which constitutes its substance or which amounts to a condition sine qua non is invalid.”

IN SYNTHESIS: The resignation was invalid because of a substantial error (a separation of the munus/ministerium) which could not produce a vacant see, and thus the conclave of 2013 could not have taken place, and thus the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is invalid.

5) ARE MUNUS AND MINISTERIUM THUS SYNONYMOUS?

The only “loophole” that remains is that this casual use of munus and ministerium by Benedict corresponds to a purely linguistic concern. That is, Ratzinger would have used these two terms “in order to not repeat the same word” for the sake of literary charm, despite the juridical catastrophe that it would entail. We recall that he himself explains in the book-interview “Ein Leben” (2020) that his text was written in two weeks and passed the scrutiny of the Secretary of State so that legal and formal errors were corrected, but UNDER THE SEAL OF THE PONTIFICAL SECRET: read HERE.

However, let us also consider the position that munus and ministerium can be synonyms and that one can mean the same thing as the other. Let’s see if this is true.

6) BONI EXPLAINS THAT THEY ARE NOT SYNONYMS IN THE JURIDICAL SENSE

Prof. Geraldina Boni,” explains the lawyer Estefania Acosta, maintains in her book “Sopra una rinuncia” (2015) that at times munus and ministerium are indicated as synonyms, for example in the 2003 exhortation Pastor Gregis by John Paul II. However, she herself admits that this synonymy occurs ONLY IN THE NON-JURIDICAL SENSE, that is, when the word munus is understood in the sense of “function,” “task,” “service,” or “activity” tied to a certain (indelible) “ontological qualification” determined by the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Instead, as Boni herself admits (pp. 180-181), there is a SECOND MEANING ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WORD MUNUS, a meaning that is no longer ontological or sacramental but rather “JURIDICAL,” equivalent to “office” [or “position” – carica] and “almost equivalent to officium,” which results from canon 145 of the Code of Canon Law, which indicates how every munus (or “office”) permanently established for a spiritual purpose by the divine law (Mt 16:18-19 and Jn 21:15-17) is also an ecclesiastical office. This being the case, one sees that, also for Boni, THIS SECOND MEANING OF THE WORD MUNUS BREAKS ANY POSSIBLE SYNONYMY WITH THE WORD MINISTERIUM. Thus far, no objections to the professor.”

7) SO, WHY DOES BONI DEFEND THE LEGITIMACY OF BERGOGLIO? THE FINAL ERROR 

“Boni’s (gross) error,” continues Acosta, “lies in gratuitously and erroneously affirming that Benedict XVI renounced the MUNUS precisely in the second juridical meaning, while the text of the Declaratio never says such a thing. Prof. Boni writes: “In short, in the light of THIS TWO-FOLD SENSE OF MUNUS, Ratzinger, with his Declaratio, could have only wanted to recall, and not (as is already well understood) to determine, how, LAYING DOWN THE MUNUS AS AN OFFICE, he would not strip himself of the sacramental MUNUS [Editor’s note: the non-juridical one]: which moreover would not have in any way been within his faculty of disposition, confirming that the power of the pope is not an absolutist or totalitarian power, flowing first of all within the boundaries laid down for it by ius divinum.”

AND INSTEAD, THE POPE HAS VERY CAREFULLY ABSTAINED FROM RENOUNCING THE MUNUS PETRINUM, instead resigning the MINISTERIUM: “…declaro me MINISTERIO Episcopi Romae … commisso renuntiare”!!!

[Furthermore, Boni suggests that, with the Declaration, Pope Benedict wanted to emphasize that he did not detach himself from the sacramental munus (that is, the episcopal munus, not the juridical munus), and she adds the obvious fact that this munus is indispensable and un-renounceable, also for the Pope. Yet we note that in the General Audience of 27 February 2013, His Holiness Benedict XVI affirms that it was precisely on 19 April 2005, accepting his election to the office of the Roman Pontiff, that he committed himself “always and forever to the Lord.” How can we understand such a sentence from the Pope, which suggests an indelibility of the Pontificate, despite the fact that it does not constitute a sacrament and therefore lacks an “ontological” indelible character? One notes that the Pope links his definitive or “forever” commitment, not with his episcopal ordination (that is, not with his sacramental munus) but with his assumption of the primacy. This statement alone demolishes Boni’s affirmation that the only thing Benedict XVI has preserved “forever” after the Declaratio is the episcopal munus, not the Petrine munus. Thus, the sentence in question may be understood only if it is assumed, as we believe we have demonstrated, that THE DECLARATIO CONTAINS NOTHING OTHER THAN A NON-EXISTENT OR INVALID RESIGNATION OF THE PETRINE MUNUS.”]

IN SYNTHESIS: Prof. Boni admits that munus and ministerium are not in fact synonyms in the juridical sense. She admits that Ratzinger cites the munus in a juridical sense. Boni says that Ratzinger has renounced the juridical munus, maintaining the non-juridical munus, AND THIS IS NOT TRUE because he renounced the ministerium.

8) RATZINGER NEVER ABDICATED. SUMMARY:

Right in the very studies of Scaccia and Boni, the “legitimizers” of Bergoglio, we therefore have the following:

1)  There are not two popes, nor an “enlarged papacy” 

2)  There is only one pope

3)  The position of “pope emeritus” does not exist 

4)  Munus and ministerium are not synonyms in a juridical sense

5)  Ratzinger used munus in a juridical sense, without ever having renounced it

6) He separated the two entities, which however are indivisible in the case of the Pope

7) And yet he renounced the wrong entity, that is, the ministerium.

As we have seen, Papa Ratzinger did everything one could do to render a resignation invalid, in addition to accompanying it with two serious errors in Latin despite being an excellent Latinist, probably in order to arouse interest in the document HERE.

“We can also add,” Sànchez comments, “the submission of an action like the resignation which is, in itself, a matter of divine law, to a condition of temporal determination,” that is, the resignation which Ratzinger deferred to 28 February 2013 which was never confirmed after the hour of 8:00 p.m., about which the theologian Carlo Maria Pace and the jurist Francesco Patruno have spoken HERE  and HERE, which once again, according to the authors, renders the resignation invalid.  Papa Ratzinger could have done all this in a fully conscious way, according to PLAN B, or even unconsciously, through a series of very particular and fortuitous coincidences and distractions (perhaps “guided” by the Holy Spirit?), but whichever way it was, it changes little.

9) THE CANONICAL “LAST STRONGHOLD”: “THE UNIVERSALIS ECCLESIAE ADHAESIO”

The last objection of the Bergoglians concerns the doctrine of the so-called Universalis Ecclesiae Adhaesio” according to which, since no cardinal who participated in the conclave of 2013 is protesting or raising doubts about the election of Francis, it is therefore to be considered good and valid. “Such a doctrine,” explains Professor Sànchez, “was never intended to save, heal, or consider satisfied the “CONDITIO SINE QUA NON” without which a provision could never be initiated. In the case of the papacy, this condition is that THE SEE IS VACANT, that is, that the reigning pope is dead or has validly abdicated. The Universalis Ecclesiae Adhaesio could remedy a posteriori an error or a lacuna in the canonical provision of the election of the Pope, once it has begun, but never the preceding condition for the initiation of that provision. Here are the details.

10) IN SYNTHESIS:

Acosta and Sànchez say that the conclave mentioned in Universalis Ecclesiae Adhesio ought to be a legitimate conclave, that is, held after a pope dies or abdicates. But since Benedict did not abdicate, the conclave of 2013 never existed. The “Pope Emeritus” is therefore the only existing Pope. There is only one Pope, Benedict XVI. Therefore, Francis is an anti-pope.